Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

A copy of [A] intended as the base text for the first German edition, performed by one of Chopin's favourite pupils, Adolf Gutmann. The manuscript bears visible traces of preparations for print in the form of engraver marks written in pencil or crayon (most frequently even numbers), indicating the planned division of the text into pages and great staves.

The notation uses abbreviations, undoubtedly repeated after the autograph, e.g., in bar 7, 10-12 and 15, as well as in bars 230-231. GC was reviewed and corrected by Chopin, who introduced a number of improvements to the text of the Sonata at that time, e.g. (in this movement):

• lowered bass motif in bars 141-142 by one octave;
• completed pedalling in bars 169-172, 179-180, 189-198;
• added stretto in bar 203.

In other places, GC, however, conveys original versions, changed later in proofreadings of FE or base text to EE, e.g.:

• c as bass note in bar 59 and 63;
• d as bass note in bar 61;
• accents in bars 93-96;

In spite of Chopin's proofreading, GC is not free from mistakes and inaccuracies:

• numerous missing accidentals, which, in the vast majority of the cases, does not influence the interpretation of the text and which were most probably repeated after [A], e.g., in bar 22, 23, 90, 107, 115, 128, 137-138, 145-150, 232-234;
• a c²-c³ octave instead of e²-e³ at the end of bar 68;
• an overlooked octave sign in bar 73;
• a C₁-E tenth instead of an E₁-E octave at the beginning of bar 93;
• a b-b¹ octave instead of a b-a¹ seventh in bar 126;
• e² instead of c² in bar 155;
• haplography in bar 217;
• e¹ instead of f¹ in bar 221.

Particular attention should be paid to two types of inaccuracies, characteristic of Gutmann:

• imprecise notation of note heads, which frequently cause misunderstandings not only due to the context, e.g., in bars 112-114 (see also bar 76);
• careless slurs, sometimes considered by the copyist to be not important enough, patent additions, e.g., in bars 212-218.

However, one has to admit Gutmann would check his work – the number of corrected mistakes exceeds the number of the overlooked ones (an accurate count is problematic, as it is not always possible to unambiguously qualify a given note or slur as inaccurate, it is equally difficult to state which element was corrected). Examples of patent corrections of erroneous notes – bars 54-55 and 60.